NYT Feminists Still Giddy About Hillary's Chances In 2016: Any Gender Problems Have Been 'Wiped Out'

Newsbusters ^

[billhilly]

Exactly.

[sten]

so they’d endorse Sarah... right?

oh, it’s not about ‘women’... it’s about ‘progressive women’. gotcha

hypocrites

[Wuli]

“Any Gender Problems Have Been ‘Wiped Out’”

Why?

Just because Obama gave her a job to keep her off his back side while he was in office; a job where his staff made all the actual foreign policy decisions and all she had to do was jet around the world and collect the thousands of photo ops of her appearances with officials, as a sort of pictoral resume;

even while on her watch at State,

in the Middle East no diplomatic breakthroughs,

in Afghanistan no diplomatic breakthroughs,

as regards Syria the opposite of diplomatic breakthroughs,

as regards Korea the opposite of diplomatic breaktrhoughs,

as regards Russia a so-called “reset” that turned into a one-sided farce.

And more.

No. All over the world, other than her thousands of photo ops, there is no record of success from Hillary’s term at State.

I’m sure she is not worried. If she cannot win in a 2016 race for POTUS, all those photo ops and all the international political networking she has done will allow her to join her defacto husband in his retirement job - selling inluence in U.S. political circles to foreign buyers. She didn’t ask for Sec State for nothin.

[Nemoque]

Gender is about language. Sex is about biology. I hate to be a jerk about this, but it drives me crazy. People have sex. Words have gender. Hillary, according to her book, is a switch hitter. She is of the female sex. She will always be a female. She is just a sexually immoral female. No doubt that will cause some to support her, and others to reject her. Do you really want a practicing lesbian as POTUS? If she divorces Bill and marries another woman, how perverted would that be? Do married women really want to support lesbianism as the “new norm”?